Harmful Effects of Federal Research Grants: A Rejoinder

Abstract

Professorial life in research universities has changed markedly over the past quarter-century (Tuchman, 2009). Some academics decry the corporatization of the university and the growing emphasis on the bottom line (Donoghue, 2008). Others argue that entrepreneurial universities will be engines of innovation in the future (Thorp & Goldstein, 2010). Most observers agree, however, that financial considerations of all sorts are increasingly prominent in university affairs. One university recently became the first to examine each professor in its employ in terms of their net contribution to the university's balance sheet (Mangan, 2010). Given these developments, it is not surprising that pressures to acquire federal research funding have increased dramatically in recent years. A faculty member awarded a $2.5 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant will garner an additional ~$1,250,000 for the university coffers in indirect cost reimbursement. Federal grants can thus provide generous direct funding for social work pre- and postdoctoral research fellowships and important research infrastructure and help to cover school of social work and university administrative overhead and physical plant costs via indirect cost reimbursement. Deans who lead social work faculties that are successful in bringing in substantial federal grant monies are typically well regarded and recompensed by central university administrators. Thyer (2011) has adroitly elucidated many of the key costs associated with federal grant applications and funding. It is certainly true that most applications are not funded. Furthermore, opportunity costs associated with unfunded applications are likely to grow significantly in the current economic downturn, as NIH and other funding bodies cope with constrained budgets and ever more applications. It is also true that federal funding can, in some cases, distort scientific priorities. That said, it still seems appropriate to me for the federal government to prioritize and incentivize research on the most pressing research issues of the day and to provide some oversight of this process. Of course, the influence of prestige and other nonscientific considerations on federal funding decisions should be minimized to the fullest extent possible. Thyer's (2011) assertion that excessive emphasis on acquisition of federal funding can diminish the pleasures of academic life is surely accurate. Some research areas and issues do not lend themselves to federal funding. Investigators who leave research areas about which they are passionate for those that are fundable may find themselves existentially unfilled or disgruntled. …